Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … Integrative and Distributive Bargaining.
Integrative bargaining. When the parties in negotiation are not in direct conflict and both can potentially benefit from good faith bargaining, an interest-based, or integrative form of bargaining can often lead to good outcomes. The basis for integrative bargaining is that each party willingly seeks to understand the presenting issues from the perspective of the other party. In this way, emerging interests are identified and acknowledged, and the negotiation takes on a decidedly win-win flavor. The goal of integrative bargaining is that both parties will achieve benefits in the form of their interests being met, and both parties will attain a better understanding of the challenges and objectives of their negotiating partners, The key to making integrative bargaining work is to ensure that at least one party understands how to "enlist the other in a mutual discovery of interests" (Honeyman, 2010). Until and unless this happens, the negotiations generally deteriorate into a zero sum condition. Alternately, the parties may begin a distributive bargaining relationship.
In order for integrative bargaining to work, the parties must be willing to share information so that each party's interests can be discovered and understood. It is important for the parties to work from a position...
Without the even ground that develops when both parties conduct the negotiation in good faith, the tendency will be for one party or the other to believe that distributive bargaining will produce better outcomes for them.
Distributive bargaining. When one party in a negotiation is in a position to derive benefit and the other party must give ground, a distributive bargaining situation exists. In distributive bargaining, the interests of the other party are not considered, and the relationship is not important to either party. Distributive bargaining may be part of a complex negotiation that can also employ integrative bargaining for some terms and conditions. In distributive bargaining, which is positional, both parties begin the negotiation from positions that area very far apart. Over time, and with concessions, the difference between them narrows "without either party really understanding what the other seeks to achieve" (Honeyman, 2010).
Thompson's Pyramid Model.
A framework used in conjunction with integrative bargaining, the pyramid model by LeighThompson of Northwestern University, seeks to create outcomes superior to those that might be achieved through distributive bargaining. Both the process and the product are important in integrative bargaining and in the application…
References
Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1983). Getting to Yes. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Fox, L., Carta, J., Strain, P., & Dunlap, Glen. (2009, June). Response to intervention and the Pyramid Model. Tampa, Florida: University of South Florida, Technical Assistance Center on Social Emotional Intervention for Young Children. Retrieved http://www.challengingbehavior.org/do/resources/documents/rti_pyramid_web.pdf
Honeyman, C. (2010). Integrative bargaining. Distributive bargaining. CR Info. [Website]. Broad Field Project, The Conflict Resolution Information Source, [formerly Conflict Research Consortium], University of Colorado. Retrieved http://www.crinfo.org/
CK_Essays/ck_integrative_bargaining.jsp. Retrieved http://www.crinfo.org/
Spangler, Brad. (2003). Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA). Beyond Intractability. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess, Eds., Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. [Posted: June 2003]. Retrieved http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/zopa/
Thompson, L. (1998). Integrative bargaining [Chapter 4]. The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, pp.47 -- 48. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Retrieved http://www.prenhall.com/behindthebook/0131868667/pdf/CarrellCh04final.pdf
Realm of Legal Negotiation DISTRIBUTIVE VS. INTEGRATIVE Negotiation involves a dialogue of two or more parties or people with the intention to reach a favorable outcome. This favorable result can be for just one party or both parties involved. The integrative approach to negotiation tries to expand the "pie" to make sure everyone gets something. However, the distributive approach ensures one side "wins" and the other, "loses." The legal landscape of
Negotiation is a critical component of human communications. Even the most mundane interactions we have in our daily lives can involve negotiation, such as where to eat dinner and what to order. Usually in these simple situations we do not think about the strategies of negotiation because the outcomes are relatively unimportant. Yet when it comes to higher stakes negotiation, it becomes important to recognize the various types of strategies
Purpose of Interest Based Bargaining The collective bargaining process is hardly ever dull or unexciting. Every now and then, there is significant tension as one of the participating parties or the other comes to the realization that it will fail to reach the expectations of its constituents. From time to time, there is significant eagerness and passion as resourceful options emanate with the potential to render mutual gains. In different occasions,
He who has learned to disagree without being disagreeable has discovered the most valuable secret of a diplomat." Robert Estabrook To disagree in a polite, yet friendly manner, while appearing to agree, is perhaps the most effective way of being a diplomat in negotiation exchanges. In negotiations, the advantage is lost if one loses one's stance of calm, caring concern for the other party's interests. One will find success at the
Missouri's Civil War In the early 1980's, the University of Missouri's Columbia campus was facing a bleak economic future as a poor economy and the state's tax-based appropriations system were projected to be sharply curtailed. The university's newly appointed Provost, Ron Bunn, was assigned the task of finding a solution to the looming financial disaster. When the Board of Curators and faculty gave Bunn their full support for him to single-handedly
As the negotiations became aggressive, Marlee countered Fitch's aggressiveness by unilaterally raising the price, setting deadlines ('the deal should be finalized the next time I call'), and threatening to sway the verdict against Fitch. Marlee also proved to be an adept negotiator when dealing with Rohr. She skillfully defined the value set by digging into Rohr's true motivation, and then appealed to his sense of greater achievement by offering him